Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Byron York explains why voters no longer trust Obama. While it was always clear that Obamacare involved redistribution of wealth so that the healthy would be subsidizing the sick, President Obama totally ignored that aspect of the law and sold it as a reform in which everyone would benefit. And he's been exposed for his lies and obfuscation.

In the three and a half years between March 23, 2010, the day Obamacare was signed into law, and Oct. 1, 2013, the day its implementation got under way, millions of voters, no matter what doubts they might have had, thought it best to give Obamacare a chance to work. That's why they didn't respond to the GOP's dire warnings. But now, they've seen what Obamacare can mean in their lives. And they won't be buying any more promises.

And once he lost their trust, it will be very hard to win it back with simple promises. We've heard his promises and now the American people know what that promise is worth.

The once pliant media are now fighting back against the White House's tight control of photography of the President by refusing to run photos taken by the White House Press Office. Limiting media access has turned out to be a bridge too far for media organizations.

Saeed Abedini, a pastor who lives in Idaho with his wife and two young kids, secured a permission from the government of Iran to enter the country last year to help build an orphanage. Once there, the Revolutionary Guard arrested him and tried him for “national security” charges that were based on nothing more than his Christian faith.

The jihadist kangaroo court convicted him and sentenced him to eight years in prison, where he’s been tortured and abused. We were heartened (the American Center for Law and Justice represents Pastor Abedini’s family), when President Obama raised the issue when he spoke to Iranian president Hassan Rouhani. But in a stunning and immediate rebuke to President Obama, the Iranians shortly thereafter moved Abedini to an even worse prison, where he shares quarters with murderers and rapists.

Yet rather than viewing such a rebuke as unacceptable and holding firm on sanctions until the Iranians relented, the administration not only pressed forward on a deal that gives Iran sanctions relief while allowing it to keep enriching uranium, but also pledged to facilitate “humanitarian transactions” for the people of Iran....

If you look at the Obama administration’s “fact sheet” released in the aftermath of the deal, you’ll note the deal is based entirely around a series of Iranian “commitments.” These commitments would be easier to believe if they were accompanied by a single, concrete good-faith action, such as releasing all Americans wrongly held in Iran.

But that apparently wasn’t an administration priority. When Fox News asked why Pastor Saeed wasn’t included in the deal, the administration responded: ”The P5+1 talks focused exclusively on nuclear issues.”

No, they did not. They also included “humanitarian” discussions.

Do we only care about the humanitarian needs of Iranians?

The Obama administration has established its troubling Middle Eastern pattern. In service of its grand vision, it will leave Americans behind — whether they’re besieged and isolated on a dark Benghazi night or alone and afraid in a dreadful Iranian prison.

This man's fate is now on the administration's hands. They could have insisted on his release, but they just didn't bother because they were just so eager to complete this phony deal. It is a deal that Bret Stephens reasonably argues is worse than Munich because the U.S. was negotiating from a position of strength and public support compared to the positions of Britain and France in 1938.

This agreement rewards Iran for a decade of lying to the IAEA and hiding its nuclear program, because it essentially accepts Iran’s enrichment program. The years of Iranian deceit of the IAEA and defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions have paid off.

Meanwhile, in Syria — roughly equivalent for Iran today to Afghanistan for the Soviet Union in the 1980s — there is no indication that Tehran is backing off from its support for the inhumane attacks of President Bashar Assad on his own people. To the contrary, all indications are that Iranian support for Assad, much of it delivered through the militant group Hezbollah, continues to flow unabated, notwithstanding the blowback Iran suffered this week when Sunni militants blew up its Beirut embassy. More than 100,000 Syrians have died and more continue to perish every day.

Nor is there much indication of Iran ending its war on internal dissent. The United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, recently told the General Assembly that while Iran has released roughly a dozen "prisoners of conscience," hundreds more remain in detention, many of them with "inadequate provision of food, water and medical treatment."

"Inhuman punishments such as stoning and amputation" also remain in use, and 724 executions took place between January 2012 and June 2013, with nearly 150 executions reported in the last three months alone, with Rouhani in office. Moreover, Shaheed noted, "some 15 journalists have been arrested since January 2013 (rendering a total of some 70 media personnel and bloggers in detention); approximately 67 Internet cafes were closed in July alone, and up to 5 million websites are reportedly blocked."

Finally, "members of religious minority groups, including Baha'i, Christians, Sunni Muslims and Yarsan also continue to face severe restrictions of their rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association; while ethnic, linguistic, and other minorities continue to see their rights violated in law and in practice."

Yet this is the regime with whom Kerry and Obama are celebrating their supposed breakthrough deal.

Line two of the agreement, “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapon,” is after all false. We know they have sought to build a warhead, and this agreement does not force them to come clean or answer all the questions the IAEA has put. Even David Sanger in the New York Times says this: “Iran did not agree to all of the intrusive inspection regime that the IAEA had said was needed to ensure that the Iranian program is peaceful.”

Can't decide who's America's worst Secretary of State: the one who owes his career to his wife or the one who owes her career to her husband

The Chicago Tribune excoriates Obama for the increasing numbers of people who are losing their coverage due to Obamacare. It is not just those who had purchased insurance on the individual market. The malign hand of Obamacare is spreading its destruction further than that.

• People who gain coverage through smaller employers are at risk of getting cancellation notices next year. Here's why: Many businesses with fewer than 50 employees buy coverage in the small-group market. These plans can temporarily keep offering coverage that didn't meet expensive Obamacare requirements. When that ends next year, though, many employers may cancel policies because Obamacare coverage will likely boost costs.

• Hospitals are bracing for financial turbulence as out-of-pocket deductibles climb and people find themselves liable for more of their medical bills before insurance kicks in, The Tribune's Peter Frost reports.

In the past, hospitals could count on insurers to pay 80 to 90 percent of the cost of services, leaving the rest to patients. For patients with high-deductible plans, however, the insurer's share drops to as low as 60 percent, with consumers on the hook for the balance. And if patients can't pay? Hospitals can write it off as bad debt or, in some cases, charity care. But many hospitals are already operating on thin margins. Add them to the list of potential Obamacare losers in waiting.

Tens of millions of people who have coverage through large American companies aren't losers … yet. The administration granted those businesses a one-year reprieve from the Obamacare mandate to provide coverage or pay penalties. That ends for 2015, and employers are already calculating what to do. Some may cut jobs, or employees' hours, to avoid offering costly insurance coverage. Other companies may dump everyone into the federal exchanges and pay penalties that are almost certain to be less than what coverage would cost.

This segment, which aired on a CBS News affiliate in Virginia, is unsparingly brutal for the White House. Fishericks is (a) fighting kidney cancer, (b) loves her soon-to-be-canceled employer-based coverage, (c) can't find an affordable policy on Obamacare's exchange that allows her to keep her doctors, and (d) tearfully frets that the new regime will be so punitive and expensive that she won't have enough money to visit her beloved grandchild. A genuine parade of horribles. Fishericks' experience shreds four core promises of Obamacare: She can't keep her plan, she can't keep her doctor, she can't afford the new options, and she falls beyond the administration's "five percent" deception. She's one of the millions who will lose their group coverage status over the next few years.

Another unintended consequence of Obamacare - some smokers are finding that insurance is now so expensive under Obamacare they're dropping health insurance.

Unlike drug addicts, alcoholics, or the obese -- all of whom represent higher-than-average medical costs -- smokers are the only such group with a pre-existing condition that ObamaCare penalizes. It allows insurance companies to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than non-smokers for an identical policy, depending on the state and any subsidies the person might qualify for.

For example, premiums for a 64-year-old non-smoker, according to the Kaiser Health Calculator, cost $9,000 a year for a standard "silver" insurance plan.

The same policy for a smoker could cost $13,600.

And whom does this most affect - poor people who are much more likely to be smokers.

The North Carolina state motto is "To be rather than to seem." The motto of this administration should be "To seem rather than to be."

35 comments:

Amazing. Elliot Abrams has credibility to call out Iran for lying? He was convicted for lying to congress in the Iran-Contra scandal. That would be the scandal in which Reagan illegally sold arms to Iran.

Perhaps next we can get Bill Clinton's or El Rushbo's take on the sanctity of marriage.

So you're OK with the Obama Administration's appeasement of Iran, Munich Part Deux? That "reset" with Russia went so well, what could possibly go wrong with a deal with the mullahs? I'm not surprised since you lefty lemmings haven't found a cliff you're not willing to follow Obama over.

And while you're tossing stones about weapons to Iran (for hostages), a bad idea, you have to wonder what the administration is covering up in Benghazi and the Turkish diplomat's visit with the now deceased Amb. Stevens. Oh, wait...you don't care because, well, what difference, at this point, does it make?

But then again, as long as we're focusing on a foreign policy that reminds the former Tehran embassy hostages of Jimmy Carter...

"It's kind of like Jimmy Carter all over again," said Clair Cortland Barnes

Poor equitus,You really have a problem with facts: Abrams is a convicted liar, and was involved with some of Reagan's worst disgraces (which include selling Iran weapons, empowering Saddam Hussein and helping Hussein utilize chemical weapons).I don't have the expertise to judge whether the Iran pact is good or bad. I suspect you don't either. I wonder how many people citing Munich have any idea what they're talking about. Given your cowardly refusal to walk back perverted statements you know are wrong, your opinion carries less credibility than even a convicted liar such as Abrams.

OK, so your problem with the capitulation with Iran is Elliot Abrams. That's a Progressive approach! What would you do if you couldn't react to criticism of an Obama initiative without attacking someone?

I'm not surprised to hear you say that you have no idea of what to think of this deal. I guess we'll just have to approve the agreement to see what's in it. I can hear bolt-neck Kerry conveying his boss' promise to the mullahs:

I love the way Mark skips over any argument from Elliott Abrams and goes straight for the ad hominem. In other words, Mark know Abrams is right, so he unsuccessfully tried to attack his credibility.

BTW, Mark, as is usual for him, misstates the situation with Abrams. He pled guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress, not lying. He was also pardoned. Now, if we want to talk about lying to Congress, we can find fertile ground in both the administration and the President himself.

Gee, Rick, whether it's defending convicted liars, explaining why a repub governor lying is good government, pretending to know nothing about the disgraceful false charges against Menendez, or your silly meltdown about Obama's gift-giving and lack of nurturing, you always manage to amuse.

Yes, Obama is paying a price for his "you can keep it" lie and the roll-out fiasco. And he should. If he can't regain the trust and show that Obamacare can work, he'll deservedly join Bush as a failure.We'll see.

In the meantime, I have no doubt that you, equitus and others will continue to disgrace yourselves with your own lies.

Way to go Mark. You are consistently off topic. If you didn't have ad hominems, you would have nothing at all. Worse, you seem to have your own version of every previous debate which makes your accusations incomprehensible. It is like you sit there for months in your mother's basement going over and over what you should have said, but didn't until the false memory takes over.

You clearly have no understanding of diplomatic protocols and the nurturing required of alliances. Well, that goes for you and Obama. Obama has managed to get the whole Middle East hating him and the Iranians calling him a liar, too. Meanwhile, Asia is erupting with China not fearing Obama at all. Even South America is poking him in the eye. You have never seen a meltdown before but US influence in the world has "melted down". And, Putin can recognize the mark when he sees him.

Menendez is dirty. You know it and I know it. Knowing he is dirty does not mean I can prove it, but I can still know it. Hey, he is from New Jersey. The only place worse is Illinois.

I will guarantee you no one who encounters you feels "disgraced". We only shake our heads at the pure malevolence of the left as they tell us oh how sensitive they are. But, you are the master of the ad hominem.

Oh, and it is not only the "you can keep it" lie. It is the "you can keep your doctor" lie. The "it will save the average family $2500" lie and several others. The sticker shock alone is forcing formerly insured families to go without. There is nothing Obama said to sell ObamaCare that is true.

It's sad that the only effort Mark has made to defend Obama's lies about his namesake health insurance scam is that "Obama is paying a price for his 'you can keep it' lie and the roll-out fiasco". Does he not see that millions of Americans are paying a price?! Very revealing.

Brilliant, Rick. Your evidence that Menendez is "dirty" is that he is from New Jersey. Fortunately for Chris Christie, that's too idiotic for anyone to take seriously. If Menendez is corrupt, a rapist or a pedophile (as he was charged on this site with no objection by conservatives), he deserves due process. Pretty basic principle.You really don't understand that?

Mark is not sure about the Kerry-Obama deal with Iran because of Elliot Abrams and because Menendez hasn't appeared in court yet. That's our Mark!

Still, it is disconcerting that Mark isn't all onboard with giving the Mullah's their due when it comes to alternative energy - you know, to let them become less dependent of foreign oil - because he always seemed so confident in Obama in the past. Who supported ObamaCare more than Mark? I wonder what could cause him to have doubts now?

equitus, I assume you keep bringing up Obama's 57-state gaffe because you think it shows his stupidity. I continue to bring up comments by you and Rick because they show a lack of honesty and integrity. I'm sure most people understand the 57-state gaffe was just one of those bizarre "brain-farts" that happen to everyone now and again. Your perverse, "malevolent" comment about me and others "enjoying abortion as a blood sport" wasn't.That Rick and you object to my post doubting the credibility of Abrams while standing by your disgraceful words is, unfortunately, par for the course.

Did I bring up that particular gaffe in this thread or are you riffing on another? If it wasn't in this thread, I can't imagine why you brought it up. Why not just get to the point of defending Obama's capitulation to Iran or his disastrous ObamaCare fiasco?!

I guess we could spend more time watching you thrash over the same tactics that your side heaped on Bush and by that I mean the eight year campaign of character assassination. But really, Mark, I'd much rather talk about the millions of Americans that are losing their coverage, the collapse of our foreign policy, and the sorry state of the economy.

These little chats we have are making me wonder if your BDS is some new form of ADD. Try to stay on topic, Mark.

"While the allegations about the prostitutes may have been discredited, the Senator still faces an ethics inquiry into his relationship with that donor who provided Menendez with private plane flights and for whom Menendez allegedly intervened to help obtain contracts.

Menendez has already been forced to amend his financial disclosure statement to account for the flights and reimburse the donor for $58,000."

Poor people can be bought off. The fact the girls recanted is not dispositive. No one has come up with any particular reason why Menendez was a target.

Menendez clearly has ethical problems. Is that enough for you, Mark, or do you prefer to keep your eyes averted and sing "la la la"?

Next, the first reference to "57" is in your post. No one else brought it up. Does it still bother you that someone as "brilliant" as Valerie Jarrett tells us Obama is, can still make such a a gaffe when he isn't on his teleprompter? Why do you think Obama was forced by his staff to give his stump speech via teleprompter. No candidate, ever, has done that.

You bring up my comments because you still do not understand them. The whole idea of a "big picture" eludes you. That is why I took so much time to explain to you why the treatment of England was such a forerunner to what has turned out to be a disastrous foreign policy. It was not the gifts. It was the attitude. It seems, though, the concept still eludes you.

It is more than a little funny that you want to discard any opinion by Abrams even if the topic is in his wheelhouse while complaining about my disregard for Menendez even as he is a part of line of Senators from New Jersey that include Torticelli and now Cory Booker who also turned out to be a serial liar. It appear New Jersey likes Democratic Senators who lie.

Finally, you have accused me before of saying something I did not say and then were unable to provide any reference to show I did. Your credibility, Mark, has been shot over the past 5 years. Yet, you decide the best approach is to throw ad hominems at others as a distraction from your own incompetence. You are destined to be a loser if you ever do grow up. I can't see any co worker or anyone else who would want to hang with.

Hey, did you bring up ObamaCare over Thanksgiving dinner as Obama told you? How did that go? That assumes, of course, anyone invited you to dinner.

Sorry,Rick, which dumb thing are you denying? Was it the nonsense about dissing the queen after I said (and showed evidence) that the Iraq war played a role in Britain's debates regarding action in Syria.

"Obama did not lose Britain because of Iraq. They "dissed" Obama because he has spent the last 5 years "dissing" Britain including returning the Churchill bust, giveing the Queen some silly tapes of speeched she couldn't even play if she wanted to, plus denying there was any "special relationship" with Britain. I will be our idiot President wishes now he had a special relationship with Britain"

The fact is Rick, I was absolutely right that the Iraq war was a factor in the debates (and I went no further than calling it a factor). For whatever reason, you called me a liar and posited your own absurd theory, which you have not backed up to this date. For all your bluster, I wonder if you can muster the decency to acknowledge you are wrong.

Mark is now on the fence about Obama's offer to Iran (If you like your uranium, you can keep your uranium) because the Queen of England has been offended. It's like Whack-a-Mole!

In the meantime Mark seems to overlook Benghazi and the implications it may have for arms transfers, but what difference does it make anyway? No surprise, given the administration's proven track record of dealing arms to the drug cartels in Mexico. That gambit ended up killing at least one American law enforcement officer and it didn't raise a peep from the loyal, obedient left!

The thread is about Iran not the Queen. Now if you want to bring Iraq into the discussion, I suggest that you start with the new context created by Obama which has made Iraq a transhipment route for Iranian forces, weapons, and other logistics support to the Assad regime. Now if Obama and his side kick buffoon Biden hadn't blown the SOFA with Iraq, Iran would have a much tougher time supporting its client.

Of course, I have never made any connection between Iran and the queen. Another bizarre lie.The more you and Rick try to help each other out, the more absurd and pathetic you both sound. Please continue!

I made a legitimate point that Abrams didn't have much credibility on the issue, given his conviction for lying (as well as a censure for giving false testimony in a separate case), and his involvement in the illegal arming of Iran. If you re-read the first posts, you'll see that you were the first to go "off-topic" with Benghazi.But, as usual, don't let facts get in your way. You've got Rick believing in you, so there's that. (And kudos: I assumed you'd be his lapdog. Turns out he's yours.)

Well at least you're back to something to do with the post that this thread is attempting to follow. Congratulations.

So we're to believe that you trust Iran over Abrams? Is that your complaint?

How about we discuss what we know about Iran, its motivations, its activities over the years and what this lame Kerry/Obama effort may yield? Can you do that or do you feel you can only engage in your usual deflections?

I'll understand if you admit that you just aren't able to fathom what Obama is thinking about by appeasing Iran.

I don't trust either, equitus. Why do you think it's an either/or proposition?

Just more of the same idiotic "reasoning" from people who can't defend themselves. I remember back when people here said if you were against the Iraq war, you were pro-Saddam (I can't remember if you were one of those fools, equitus). Or the guy who claimed to work in military intelligence who pretended all criticism of Bush was "spitting in the faces of our troops". Of course, nobody here questioned why somebody who worked in military intelligence would be on a blog posting about military intelligence. Just as nobody here has questioned your obvious lies and disgraceful claims.

You don't trust Iran? Good for you Mark. Why do you suppose Obama trusts Iran?

As long as we're playing, "I remember when...", I remember when you thought you were funny with your sick fish kill joke. There are dozens of blogs by MI people - the key is that we do not discuss classified in those forums. Also, you might want to qualify your claim about "all criticism", as "spitting in the face of troops". You know very well that's not true, though I did feel your Peace Corps (pronounced "corpse", if you're name is Obama) fish farm failure gaffe was in very poor taste.

Still think I'm equitus?

But let's try to stay on track and get back to why on Earth an American President would want to ink a deal with the leading state sponsor of terrorism that will ultimately allow it to continue its long held desire to acquire a nuclear weapons capability?

Perfect. The guy who professed that 'Osama is dead because of a decrease in communications' never completely left. He just crawled away in disgrace and came back with a new identity. And it only took you about a day to disgrace yourself anew.While I called the deception right away when you posted as "lfm", I obviously was wrong as to your true identity. My apologies, equitus. As for my "sick" fish joke: As you know, I quickly acknowledged it was a stupid comment and apologized (I actually thought you might have been truly offended.) An honorable person would have accepted that apology (and the subsequent one). But, of course, you're not honorable. Instead, you lied and pretended my comment was intentionally offensive instead of careless.Between that, your refusal to acknowledge your mocking of the Constitution and your perverse comment about "enjoying abortion as a bloodsport", you prove that you haven't changed a bit. A disgrace then. A disgrace now. Fortunately for you, I doubt anyone here has the integrity to call you on it.

You referenced the Guardian, who has been losing $50 million/year for the last 6 years trying to be the world's most liberal and Mark Fisher at the Washington Post, which has been reluctant to criticize Obama on anything up until the failure of ObamaCare. Well, here is one that supports my position that Obama has done it to himself:

The vote in the British Parliament was 285-272. It would have taken only 7 changed votes to change the outcome. Bush would have gotten them because he nurtured relationships. Your claim that the Obama arrogance toward Britain played no part in the vote is absurd. Obama reaped what he had sown.

I never argued Iraq was not a factor. I argued that the the Obama arrogance was the deciding factor. Barack Obama offered no reason for the British Parliament to support him because he did not support Britain.

BTW, I was in the Falklands in January. It is as British as they come. Argentina, on the other hand, is a failing state because of poor government. Poor government - that reminds me of Obama. I was also in Argentina in January. Very nice place, but the people are hating their government. Even the tour guide were saying that.

Your 'quote' is your own lie. Look at what you've attributed to me (with the 'lack of a proper quotation mark to drive home the point of gross imprecision on your part') and then go back and look at what I actually said.

As for your months and months of carrying on with cut and pastes attributed to equitus, you can apologize all you like but you still come off sounding like a complete ass. Kind of like your 'apology' about comparing dead American soldiers to fish you killed in Guatemala.

Stop playing these games and stand up for your side of the debate on Iran appeasement.

Rick,It's pretty simple: Just as I posted a fact that Elliot Abrams is a convicted liar, I said the Iraq war played a role in Britain's vote. You chose to challenge me, and embarrassed yourself with your bizarre focus on "silly tapes" to the queen. I'm pretty sure that, as Queen, she could have access to the technology if she wanted. Perhaps you think she's limited to a victrola.You do realize, don't you, that whether or not Bush would have gotten the votes is opinion, not fact.

Now that you've exposed your own fraud (now it makes sense as to why you're so sensitive to that word), you're going to lie about saying that your keen military knowledge led you to conclude that Osama was dead based on a decrease in comuniques?Apparently, you forget that you humiliated yourself over that, as well as your lie that Obama joked about "dead corpse-men". That is, after all, why you felt the need to leave and come posing as a new poster, right?I will continue to "cut-and-paste" your comments alongside those of equitus. They were wrong before the charges fell apart, and are particularly disgraceful now. And, of course, there's the whole plagiarism (pulling a Biden, I believe you called it).Glad to have you back. You're like the prodigal son. (Well, except there is no fatted-calf awaiting you and you're still an embarrassment.)

LOL, Mark. You seem to have this penchant for claiming someone else has embarrassed themselves. I assure you, I have never embarrassed myself in any debate with you. I am the proverbial cat toying with the mouse.

Now, you say:

"You chose to challenge me, and embarrassed yourself with your bizarre focus on "silly tapes" to the queen. I'm pretty sure that, as Queen, she could have access to the technology if she wanted. "

Did it ever occur to you that no one has ever before given a gift to a foreign dignitary that was his own speeches? There is a special kind of arrogance that would think this was a suitable gift. Certainly the Queen of England, if she wished, could have gotten suitable technology. But, do you think she had any interest in doing that? I don't. I am sure, though, it was a topic of conversation.

No, Mark, as I explained to you multiple times, the weird gift to the queen was merely indicative of the tin ear Obama has to diplomatic relationships and the result is that our allies are not there when we need them because he has "dissed" our allies. It is not at all clear if Obama has done this out of ignorance or ideology, but the result has been the same.

It is sad that it is impossible to get you to look at the total picture. Instead, you lie and mislead. For example, you did not bring up Iraq until two days after the start of thread, but you post at 6:39 this morning as if Iraq and the Queen had been in your initial post over two days ago. That is what I mean about "lie and mislead". Bless your heart, Mark (endowed with all the meaning Southerners imply.

Rick,I would suggest that if having your words quoted back to you is upsetting, you be more careful when writing them in the first place. (Perhaps you should have gone with the Falklands story and bypass the silly Queen reference entirely). Though you're right to call me out on your shame and embarrassment. Given your defense of lfm's comments on Menendez, who am I to say how low you can go before regret kicks in.

Ah, so quick to defend your kindred spirit, Menendez, when he receives the kind of beat down usually reserved for a Romney or Palin, but when challenged to defend an Obama policy, like Munich II, or even the ghastly ObamaCare debacle, you run like a scalded dog. Why not engage on the challenge of Iran? Are you intellectually incapable or do you actually have the sense to see that the facts just aren’t on Obama’s side? You have me wondering because this has been your tedious default for so long that it has become ridiculous.

Your latest reply to me is just another fine example of your incompetence when quoting others: Using actual quotation marks this time, an improvement, you pecked out "dead corpse-men". You’re the only one that has ever said that here. Only you, Mark. I reminded you that Obama has cringingly REPEATED his mispronunciation of the word corpsman, while poking fun at your Peace Corps lineage and your foul attempt at a joke about killing Americans. Never said Obama was joking. In fact, he is a joke, in a truly awful way, but he wasn’t joking; just stupid. And it was not in the context of a dead military medical specialist, as I recall, but of a corpsman performing his duties in Haiti after the earthquake. I think Obama mucked it up twice in the same sentence or at least in consecutive sentences. He is, after all, so irretrievably dependent on a teleprompter and arrogant enough that he may even be incapable of correcting himself, he very well may have and probably has repeated that mispronunciation again and again elsewhere. So if it was repeated again about a dead corpsman I’ll cut you some slack on what otherwise appears to be a blatant misquotation by you.

When you’re ready to talk about ObamaCare, we can have a discussion about fraud. Until then, you’d better stick with Iran.

Sorry lfm,Just because you slithered away to re-invent yourself, you're still on the hook for your previous disgraces. You did, in fact, claim OBL was dead based on a decrease in communiques. And you did joke about "corpse-men". I believe you added a rimshot to your joke. But of course, you're a coward to come back here with a new identity, and you're a coward to stick to your claim that anyone is guilty based on the testimony of anonymous, paid sources. I'm sure you realize that calling Menendez a "rapist and pedophile" was a gross over-reach, but you don't have the decency or courage to admit it. And you're depending on your fellow conservatives to back you (enter Rick). That anyone reading your posts would believe that you have the integrity or intelligence to serve our country in military intelligence is either a fool or has a very low opinion of our military intelligence.

So there's your best shot at a debate on Iran's nuclear ambitions and the measures that the Obama administration have offered in order to fulfill them. Good job.

Your side is so wrong on so many things that you've given up even trying to switch to another issue like the economy (fail), energy (fail), healthcare (epic fail) or even another aspect of foreign policy or national security. You've got nothing to stand on and you know it.

I've been yanking your chain with the same kind of anonymous source attacks that helped level at Romney. Or do you forget Reid's tax lie based on an anonymous call? The kind of things said here about Menendez are the building blocks of Letterman and Mahr scripts, only Menendez still hasn't resolved his issues. But you're ready to trust him anyway because another prostitute says it wasn't him? Great! You're standards haven't changed.

If they had, you'd be pretty upset that Obama lied repeatedly over the years to Democrats and Progressives to get this sorry redistribution scam passed as a healthcare bill and he's still lying about it today while millions lose their policies and millions more watch their premiums skyrocket. If you had a sliver of intellectual honesty you would be shaking your head about cutting a deal with the world's leading exporter of terrorism that will allow it to keep its nuclear program.

But go ahead and keep complaining about me all you want even though that Alinsky personal attack tactic is thread worn.

lfm,Personal attacks? You've called me a "friend of rapists and pedophiles" and claimed I "enjoy abortion as a bloodsport". Two perverted lies from a person who claims to want a serious debate. (And why would you even want to "debate" someone that evil?) "Thread worn": That would be your pathetic, constant attempt to twist a dumb comment I made into a malicious slam. Even your cowardly act of slinking away from here and coming back with a new identity is a failure. Perhaps you might try again, but I suggest your name isn't the only thing you need to change.